9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year 20072008 in which he had included a sum of Rs. 51.96 lacs (rounded off) which was received by him on retirement from the said partnership firm towards his share in goodwill. Such return was accepted by the Assessing Officer under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') without scrutiny on 24.3.2009. 3. The petitioner filed a revision application before the Commissioner of Income Tax on 6.9.2017 against the said order of assessment, and requested that the amount of Rs. 51.96 lacs be deleted from computation of his taxable income for Assessment Year 2007-08. In such revision petition, the petitioner had stated that intimation under section 143 (1) of the Act, was not served on him and that therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question was communicated to the assessee, or the date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier. As per our records, in your case intimation u/s 143 (1) was served on 29/03/2009, a copy of which is enclosed to this letter. Therefore, as Revision Petition is not filed in time, the same is not maintainable under provisions of Sec.264. Therefore, the Revision Petition is disposed of as dismissed." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that intimation under section 143 (1) of the Act, was never served on the petitioner and that therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax was not correct in holding, that the revision application was filed beyond the period of limitation. He submitted that the petitioner had offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereof, would become time-barred upon expiry of the period prescribed under the statute. This would happen sometime in the year 2010. 9. In the circumstances, the knowledge that the department does not propose to take the return of income for scrutiny assessment, can be attributed to the petitioner. If the petitioner had any dispute with the department accepting his return as per declaration made in it, the petitioner had to file an appropriate revision application before the Commissioner of Income Tax, within a period of one year thereafter, and at any rate, explaining the delay caused in filing such a revision application beyond the said period. In the present case, the revision application was filed seven years later. By no stretch of im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
